Bloggers who write about immigration are among the most passionate on the Internet. This week, they had plenty to keep them busy.

First, Star-Ledger Reporter Brian Donohue broke a story about the state's immigrant communities getting nervous after Newark police allegedly questioned an immigrant about his immigration status after he reported a crime.

Then, Riverside in Burlington County made headlines by repealing a controversial anti-immigration law.

Immigration blogging is the subject of this week's Jersey Blogs column on the opinion page of The Star-Ledger. If you didn't see it in print, click the link below.

As always, feel free to e-mail me if you want to suggest other topics or local blogs for future columns.

Jersey Blogs
By Kelly Heyboer
The Star-Ledger

Immigration is one of the most divisive-- and blogged about-- issues on the Internet.

This week, writers on both sides of the debate are fired up over two New Jersey immigration stories that have been rippling across the country.

The first came out of the small Burlington County town of Riverside, where the town committee voted to repeal a controversial anti-immigration law. The ordinance, which had never been enforced, sought to fine or jail residents who knowingly employed or rented housing to illegal immigrants.

Riverside officials said they scrapped the ordinance because of concerns the town couldn't afford to fight lawsuits challenging the law.

The second immigration story came out of Newark, where police allegedly quizzed a freelance photographer from a local Brazilian newspaper about his immigration status after he reported finding a dead body in an alley. The photographer, who is in the U.S. on an expired visa, was not turned over to immigration authorities.

But some worried the news of the incident, which has been spreading through local immigrant communities, would discourage undocumented residents from reporting crimes. Under a directive issued last month by the state Attorney General police are required to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for a serious crime. But the rule is not supposed to apply to victims or witnesses to a crime.

Bloggers around the country have been weighing in on both stories and the escalating uncertainty over how local and state governments should deal with illegal immigrants.

This is what's wrong with this whole "illegal immigration" debate. Some people get it, and most don't. The word "illegal" should be the end of this whole debate. I guess I just don't get it.
Take for example Riverside, N.J. This town tried to do the right thing and made a town ordinance fining businesses and landlords who hired or dealt with illegal immigrants. Well, now, they have rescinded the law because they are afraid that they won't be able to afford the legal bills that will come with this law. Let me repeat: They got rid of a law, that fined companies and landlords, who dealt with ILLEGAL immigrants, because they are afraid, that said ILLEGAL immigrants will take legal action against the town of Riverside.
I guess I am not smart enough to understand this whole ILLEGAL immigration debate. I was brought up by parents who explained to me the difference between right and wrong. ILLEGAL is on the wrong side, and LEGAL is on the right side.

And why did this little township repeal this common-sense law? Because they don't believe they can afford to defend the legal challenges in federal courts! What an outrage! On the one hand the federal government demonstrates that it is absolutely willing to look the other way and not enforce its own immigration policy, and on the other they're populating the courts with "justices" who will sometimes rule in favor of illegal immigrants--as happened earlier this year in Hazleton, Pa.--thus stifling the efforts of small-town America in making and enforcing policy that is the federal government's responsibility in the first place!

From Amy Gottlieb, program director of the American Friends Service Committee Immigrant Rights Program in Newark, blogging at NJ Voices (www.nj.com/njvoices/) about police questioning the immigration status of the Brazilian photographer:

Why would the police act this way if not for misguided public pressure to "do something" about immigration? Are they trying to prove a point that they can arrest people on immigration status? It is no secret that immigrants live in New Jersey and throughout the US without status. Local officials, state officials, federal officials, and the rest of us all know that New Jersey is home to undocumented immigrants.

And yes, once again, I refuse to say the 'i' word, not because I am pretending that people have not violated a law, but because I refuse to use language that dehumanizes anyone, anywhere, ever. And because some laws, including our immigration laws, need to be changed to reflect the current realities and needs of future citizens.

It is the responsibility of all of us to understand the myriad reasons that someone might be undocumented, and to support federal legislation that offers meaningful change to the status quo by providing opportunities for them to obtain legal documentation. Because the status quo does not work, and leads us further down the slippery slope of forfeiting safety, security, and common sense to prove a point that is no longer worth proving.

There is a debate going on right now in this country over the possible revision of our immigration laws. No clear consensus has emerged yet, and there are many good and honorable people advocating on behalf of many diverse viewpoints. But, until the issue is resolved by our elected leaders, the existing law remains in full force. We are honor bound to respect and uphold it . . .

As for reporting crimes, every police department has an anonymous tip line. In Newark, it's 1-877-NWK-TIPS. I'd hope if a Brazilian immigrant in Newark did happen to see Osama (bin Laden), he'd call that number, or even just dial 911 from a pay phone. If he didn't, I'd have to say that he's not really committed to the ideals embodied in our society, and he doesn't belong here.